About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
million in military aide to pakistan. relations between the two countries took a major hit after u.s. forces killed osama bin laden in pakistan. that was back in may. those ties are on even shake yes, sir ground. peter doocy has more from washington. >> reporter: $800 million less. that is what pakistan is going to be getting us from military aide, getting shaved off the 2 plus billion, now the white house says is because they could be more helpful in rounding up terrorists and they gave hundred u.s. army trainers the boot in the last few weeks. >> obviously they have been an important ally but they have been a victim of enormous amounts of terrorism but they have taken steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid which we were given to their military. >> the communication breakdown regarding our raid on their soil to kill bin laden, some critics say maybe they knew there was all along. brand-new secretary of defense, l leon panetta says we don't know enough yet. >> everybody has suspicions about pakistanis, what they knew reality is their are investigations being co
, which is also the problem of pakistan, becomes a regional problem in which the country's in the region have a stake in solving and are not -- there's a reasonable chance that can be pulled off. >> dr. brzezinski, you mentioned pakistan. the focus of policy leaders. turning away from afghanistan, we got reports the journalist who was killed by the isi inside pakistan further out is complicating our relationship with that group. we announced going in to kill osama bin laden. how do we manage this relationship that's been difficult to manage for as far as the eye can see? >> well, first of all, we have to recognize we are dealing here with two sifrl conflicts. one in afghanistan and the one in pakistan. there's a conflict in pakistan. there isn't a foreign intervention trying to resolve it. it is a great internal conflict. what we are seeing in pakistan is a series of contradictory policies, contradictory engagements and contradictory engagements. the army wants to preserve a stable pakistan that is assured of security and sees the united states as a component of the success in that quest
of pakistan that will bring success to local areas. a country from kabul, it will never happen. we are wasting time and money. the fact we are leaving may assist in the development of stability in local areas. they will never be a centrally governed pakistan, i mean afghanistan. afghanistan is not like iraq. give me one more second and i'll tell you what i think is going to happen in iraq. we'll probably go back to having one bloodthirsty tyrant to rule the country. that's the irony of iraq. >> happy days, wes. >> afghanistan is extraordinarily tribal. it's difficult to have a conversation about afghanistan. one story i loved was one of the things we did in afghanistan when i was working with the civil affairs team, giving out flags to children and local leaders. they would look at the flag and say what is this. you would have to explain, it's your country. there's another thing, i think you brought up a good point, joe. afghanistan is not iraq. you are right. there's a crucial player, though that factors in. that's iran. iran is not only very active and involved, but in addition to that, iran
as well. pat. >> dr. brzezinski, let me talk to you about pakistan. powers flu out, richard nixon tilted, doctor brzezinski was over there looking down the pass. they were a great ally in the cold war. now it looks like we have lost pakistan. have we lost pakistan? if so, why and was it inevitable. >> i think we are losing pakistan. i don't know if we have lost it yet. if we disengage intelligently and engage in the umbrella i have been talking about, her happens we will lose it all together. i think the fault is two way. first of all, we have never been really consistently and comprehensively sensitive to the political interests in having a secure backyard in afghanistan. we just haven't. resently, we played with indi s indians. we give a super nuclear deal to the indians. we did not give it to the pakistanis. there's resentment there. pakistan is coming undone on its own. it's not all our undoing. there's a conflict between the army and society at large. divisions between the army and the military and intelligence. ethnic differences. regional differences in pakistan. plus, this overw
pakistan, as we said on the show a number of times. how do we deal with pakistan and at the same time, get out of afghanistan except in terms of special forces or drones to represent our interest and chase down terrorists? meanwhile, you have the greatest tender box in the world, to save a nuclear pakistan with more than 100, probably twice as many with nuclear warheads that can fall into the hands of terrorists. >> the bottom line is, how do we deal with it? >> it's always pakistan is a basket case, a nuclear basket case. stay in afghanistan. >> you don't. you don't. >> it's not going to work. that is washington's argument, mike barnicle. pakistan is stabilized. we have to keep having american troops killed in afghanistan. it doesn't add up. invading cambodia is the right move when you are going into vietnam. >> continuing argument and keep making it because less than 1% of american families and american people are serving in the military in afghanistan. >> there you go. >> back to the draft. >> untouched. >> we need a draft. >> we'll come back the dr. aidan quinn. [ male announcer ] memb
even with osama bin laden's death at this compound in may pakistan is the base for al qaeda's core leadership including the egyptian doctor who replaced the al qaeda leader. >> it is stunning pakistan, which is supposed to be our alley in the war against terrorism does not even share finger print data within its own government. >> information sharing and passport security has remained in the u.s. >> they can't carry out their plots without travel documents, some of that is out of our control we are closer to a c. >> former intelligence officials say the u.s. should use leverage to apply higher security standards for some nations it is a resource problem for others it is refusele to co-operate. >>> u.s. airports are still vulnerable to terror attacks despite billions in security upgrades since 9/11 a hearing on airport security on capitol hill starts in a little more than an hour. >> live at dulles stacy. >> good morning we are coming up upon the 10 year anniversary of september 11th, 2001 there has been billions of dollars put into revamp airport security representative jason of ut
afghanistan, pakistan. you're reading a couple pieces in the "new york times." now it's spreading to all of these different countries and one that really jumped off the page for me, drone attacks in somalia. >> joining us, jeremy scahill, on the cia secret sites in somalia, jeremy, the secret training programs and secret prisons out of somalia is part of your reporting there. how big a threat are these terrorist group there's? >> we should say first of all president obama campaigned on a promise to go up against these bush era policies declaring war on the world, running secret sites, torturing prisoners. deeply involved in an underground dungeon officially run by the somali national security agency, but their salaries are paid by the cia directly. in fact, one somali agent described thousand hairli ed ho and paid by u.s. agents and the u.s. is interrogating prisoners, including those rendered by the kenyan government, snatched off the streets in nairobi based on u.s. intelligence and taken to this secret prison and interrogated. it goes against the president's ordered he signed in janua
of the wars in afghanistan and pakistan. >> still not getting serious. >> i went away from fuzzy. >> is that like jerry at trick math? >> yes. >> are you surprised they don't have a deal today? i actually really -- i mean, i really thought -- >> i would be shocked if they don't have a deal in the next two or three days. again, republican freshmen may have a big ideology difference with barack obama and his world view, and the divide is no greater than ronald reagan's was with tip o'neal in 1983 when they sat down, and they did a kneel. yes, you differ with barack obama and the democrats, but -- >> usually you are good at seeing somebody's angle. like you know what their angle was. what is the angle here? i don't get it. >> these republicans believe this is their only opportunity -- >> are they so stuck to the contract with the tea party they cannot think outside the box for the good of the country? seriously? >> can i finish? you asked a question and i need to finish. they understand one thing. >> what do they understand? >> they are dead right about this. this is their best chan
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)